Selected quad for the lemma: city_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
city_n	aaron_n	birth_n	moses_n	29	3	8.7710	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36663	A treatise of baptism wherein that of believers and that of infants is examined by the Scriptures, with the history of both out of antiquity : making it appear that infants baptism was not practised for near 300 years after Christ ... and that the famous Waldensian and old British churches and Christians witnessed against it : with the examination of the stories about Thomas Munzer, and John a Leyden : as also, the history of Christianity amongst the ancient Britains and Waldenses : and, a brief answer to Mr. Bunyan about communion with persons unbaptized / by H.D.	Danvers, Henry, d. 1687.	1673 (1673)	Wing D233; ESTC R35615	154,836	411

Infants makes not Gospel-Priviledges less then Legal To which I answer not at all for the Reasons following 1. Because they were not Circumcised because they were Children of Believers or Sealed with a new Covenant Seal as being in the new Covenant thereby as before proved but upon the account of a Birth-priviledge as being of the natural Linage and Seed of Abraham as a Typical shadowy thing all whose posterity were to he marked therewith to distinguish them from the Nations and to keep that Line clear from whence Christ according to the Flesh should come and to oblige them to keep the Law c. But no such thing in the Gospel the Body and Substance being come the Shadow was to vanish and pass away no common Father then but Christ and if Christs then Abrahams Seed and Heirs of Promise no Birth priviledge but the new Birth therefore to go back to the national Birth priviledge is so far from being a Priviledge that it i● a Bondage rather to return to the Type and Shadow the Antitype and Substance being come 2. Neither ought such a thing to be any more esteemed the loss of a Priviledge then our not enjoying literally a Holy Land City Temple a succession of a High Priest and a Priesthood by Generation or Lineal descent for y●u know their Children were Priests successively in their Generation a ●evite begat a Priest or Minister as well as the other Tribes begat Church-Members since all those Types are Spiritualised to us the Believers under the Gospel who are now the Holy Nation the Holy City and Temple the Royal Priesthood and all Church-Members by Regeneration not Generation Therefore we are so far from being loosers by the Bargain that as far as Christ exceeds Moses and Aaron the Gospel the Law the Antitype the Type the Spiritual Birth the Carnal the Extent of all Nations the Confines of Judea so far are we better and not worse Nor thirdly if it should be taken for granted that Circumcision was a Seal of the new Covenant belonging to all the Children of Israel then would not the Baptizing of the Children of Believers answer it Neither amount to so great a Priviledge no● be equivalent to it for these Reasons First there were all the Families and Tribes of Israel and all Pros●lyted strangers with their Children without distinction of good or bad to be Circumcised But here only one of a City or two of a Tribe for Believers are but thin sown and the Children of unbelievers and wicked men are to receive no such benefit in the judgment of so many And Secondly you ●ould be very short in another respect as being at an utter uncertainty when you had a right Subject for if the Parent was a Hypocrite or no Elect Person which is out of your reach to understand you cannot know whether the Child be fit for Baptisme for the Seed of a wicked man you must not meddle with by any means whereas there was not the least doubt or scruple in Israel as to the Subject for the Father being Circumcised it was an infallible mark they were right And Thirdly neither can the Child when he is grown up have any certain knowledge that such a Ceremony hath past upon him in Infancy he having no Infallible mark thereof whereas the Circumcised Infant had an indelible Character and mark in his flesh to assure him that he had received that Rite By all which demonstrations you may understand that we loose no Priviledge under the Gospel for not Baptizing our Infants though they were Circumcised under the ●aw CHAP. IV. Wherein is made manifest that the Ordained Ceremony of Baptisme is in this of Infants altered and changed and another Rite introduced quite contrary both to the signification of the Word nature of the Ordinance and manifest practice thereof not only in the Apostles time but many Ages after as confest by Parties themselves The Ceremony of Baptisme is by dipping THat the manner and Ceremony of Baptisme ought to be by dipping or plunging the whole Body under Water and not by sprinkling or pouring a little Water on the Face or Head as hath commonly been used especially since the Subjects have been changed from Men to Babes is thus made good viz. First First from the signification of the word from the proper and genuine signification of the word so well agreeing with the ends and use of Baptisme the Ceremony to the Substance Sign to the thing signified The word we call Baptisme and the Latins Baptismus is no other then the Greek word it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being so retained all along as Gomarus observes in the Latin Church and in plain English is nothing else but to dip plunge or cover all over The Truth whereof will more fully appear from our best Greek Lexicons and by the observation of our most eminent Criticks Scapula and Stephens Scapula Steph. two as great Masters of the Greek Tongue as we have any and also great defenders of Infants Baptisme do tell us in their Lexicons that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies m●rgo imergo submergo obrue item tingo quod fit immergendo inficere imbuere viz. To dip plunge overwhelme put under cover over to die in Colour which is done by plunging Grotius Grotius tells us it signifies to dip over Head and Ears Pasor Pasor an Immersion Dipping or Submersion Vossius Vossius that it implyeth a washing the whole body Mincaus Mincaeus in his Dictionary That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Latin Baptismus in the Dutch Doopsel or Doopen ●nglish Baptisme or Baptime viz. to Dive or Duc● in Water and the same w●th the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dip Leigh Leigh in his Critica Sacra saith its native and proper signification is to dip into Water or to plunge under Water for which he Cites these Scriptures where so used viz. Mat. 3.6 Acts 8.38 And that it is taken from a Dyers Fat and imports a Dying or giving a fresh Colour and not a bare washing only Rev. 19.13 And for which he quotes Casaubon Bucan Bullinger Zanchy Spanhemius He saith withall That Beza and some others will have it signifie washing and which sence Erasmus opposed affirming that it was my otherwise so then by Consequence for the proper signification was such a dipping or plunging as Dyers use for Dying of Clothes Mr. Daniel Rogers in his Treatise of Sacraments 1. P. C. 8. P. 177. saith Mr. Dan. Rogers That the Minister is to dip in Water as the meetest Act the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes it for the Greeks wanted not other words to express any other Act besides dipping if the Institution could bear it What resemblance of the Burial or Resurrection of Christ is in sprinkling All Antiquity and Scripture saith he confirm that way Dr. Taylor in his Rule of Consc Lib. 3. Ch. 4. Dr. Tayl If